No, in all fairness it is because they were old HyperV 2012 Servers and I already had XCP-Ng implemented for a POOL of 7 servers. So I added those workloads from a couple Hyperv Servers to the already existing XCP-ng. I essentially didn't need additional hosts running outdated and consuming more power.

That's more accurate, and when Citrix disabled features, that is what spurred @olivier and his team to create XCP-ng (from XenServer) and to rebrand with XCP-ng. Which XCP is the first iteration I believe of XAPI, which later was branded to XenServer.

IDK the exact history of the naming. But I'm pretty sure it all started with Xen, turned into XCP, was rebranded XenServer, and is now XenServer and XCP-ng as separate products.

No, in all fairness it is because they were old HyperV 2012 Servers and I already had XCP-Ng implemented for a POOL of 7 servers. So I added those workloads from a couple Hyperv Servers to the already existing XCP-ng. I essentially didn't need additional hosts running outdated and consuming more power.

So you decommissioned some old hyper-v servers into your more up to date XCP-ng environment. That's a good reason. Simplifies your stack, removes hardware, saves energy.

No, in all fairness it is because they were old HyperV 2012 Servers and I already had XCP-Ng implemented for a POOL of 7 servers. So I added those workloads from a couple Hyperv Servers to the already existing XCP-ng. I essentially didn't need additional hosts running outdated and consuming more power.

So you decommissioned some old hyper-v servers into your more up to date XCP-ng environment. That's a good reason. Simplifies your stack, removes hardware, saves energy.

When Citrix releases a new xenserver version (or Citrix Hypervisor as it is to be called now) xcp-ng team works to build it but without the non-free parts and with some of their own additions (Gluster support, ZFS driver etc). In the future it might change but it's really Citrix that does the heavy lifting in addition to the upstream projects. If you're not using any of the new xcp-ng only features, you are really running on the same proven source code as the Citrix product.

Personally I like the xencenter gui (xcp-ng center) for management and think it is superior to the KVM options. We have been putting xcp-ng on a bunch of new servers. We'll see what happens in the coming two, three years.

@Pete-S I've been a fan of the GUI when using xencenter in the past. I believe personally it's an outdated way to manage a hypervisor these days, especially with web based management, which is obviously not platform dependent.